Hi Mark, Philippe,

I just had a closer look at this using Alan’s handy License Diff tool, which gave it a close match to MIT-CMU - the only difference between this license and MIT-CMU is:
- “and its associated documentation” instead of just “and its documentation” in the first sentence (Permission to use…)
- use of the Oxford comma: “use, copy, modify, and distribute”
- a comma added after “copies”, as in: “provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies, and that both…”
- a comma after “specific” in last line, as in: “ pertaining to distraction of the software without specific, written…”
- “prior permission” instead of “permission” in last sentence of first paragraph.

I can also see (by just doing a naked-eye analysis) how this might also match to a variation of the HPND.

What do the other lawyers think though about the difference between this and MIT-CMU? Are these slight variations something we might simply capture with markup and then this license would be a valid match to MIT-CMU?

I made a new issue in Github repo to track here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/750

Thanks,
Jilayne